Basically, right now, once a trial is set to be public, anyone can go view (but not edit) the contents of that trial through the editor. Would it be possible to make it so a trial is publicly released, but only the author + collaborators can view the editor?

I mostly ask this because... Having the editor of the trial publicly available means that (potentially) big twists and hidden routes can be spoiled if the person opens up the editor, which, well, would ruin the story. And, well, to me, this is different from the source code viewing in v5, because it's a lot easier to read/view the editor than it was to read/view the source code.

Personally, this feature has been incredibly useful due to the fact that... well, you can look over cases so easily. As Enthalpy said here you can look at how to do a lot of technical stuff that may not be in a tutorial. You can also get music lists without asking the author for one provided they haven't changed the names of mp3s. A newbie could even go back over cases they've already played and see how people use contradictions and game mechanics, etc., without having to play through the whole case again (you've got tutorials, but it's nice to efficiently be able to see how they work in context), and see how a given case is structured and paced if they want to go for a similar thing.I mean... maybe the author could set this manually? A box like the publicly released box labelled "public editor" or something that let them choose whether it's available for all to see or not?

Yeah, obviously this is something that wouldn't be set on by default (in my opinion), just in cases where it's more plot sensitive than contradiction sensitive.

And, well, for me, I know why it's super useful... Just, there are cases where it can (in my opinion) just ruin the experience of the trial because it's so easy to access.

Like an easy example for me would be enigma's teaser thingy for the current comp. You're supposed to find the hidden number in the image and then insert that as a code in the trial... Except, because I could editor access it, I could completely bypass that step and find the next step immediately. So, in cases like that, it completely ruins the challenge and surprise of how to do it.

Or, for example, in a hypothetical VN-esque thing on AAO with multiple routes that are triggered in various ways... By having the editor completely open, you can spoil the existence of routes, spoil hidden easter eggs, and other things like that that the author may want to keep hidden. (I mean, I know I like to hide easter eggs into trials and whatnot).

So... Yes, I know perfectly well what the merits of having an open editor are. Just... I feel like it would be beneficial to have the option to either show/hide the editor.

I'm against a private editor; if people want to cheat, it is their own problem. We cannot prevent it, and we shouldn't try to. We provide the cases for them; whether they want to go through it the way we want it -- and get the best experience out of it -- or do it their own way, but lose the excitement of figuring stuff out themselves -- well, that is entirely their own choice.

Exactly. Just because everyone can cheat doesn't mean they will. There are still plenty of people, likely a majority, who want to play through a case normally, and simply not look at the editor. And even if they DO want an answer, why is it bad if they do? Do you want to prevent them from solving a case when they are totally stuck? People don't usually try to cheat immediately without even attempting a puzzle.

I mean, GameFAQs has existed just fine no problem for a while now, and checking the mechanics of the game themselves is the closest thing we have.

I know this was already discussed a few months ago, and my stance on it has not changed : it's technically very simple to ask tell the editor "do not load and display an error if the user does not have the right to save the trial", but I want to know what most people think about it before enforcing such a change.

Additionally, I might say that I don't think it is worthy of adding a specific setting for that, this is the kind of stuff for which a global policy should be enough.

As for my personal opinion, it's the same as Ganon, Enth, Spyro and Reecer : the fact that people can open cases in the editor seems to me like a great opportunity to learn, and if the user wants to cheat when playing, it's his problem.Moreover, it's not like a user could open the editor by mistake : if you don't have the right to edit a trial, the edit link will not be shown anywhere. Someone who does access the editor for a read-only trial is someone who did it by his own matured decision, I'd say.

Sorry to revive a dead topic, but what about the issue of unreleased/content not meant to be seen? For example, if I want to add a new route to my trial after it's been released without taking it down, doesn't the fact that anyone can peek in the editor and see it before it's finished/ready for release cause problems?

I know some people like to edit, add and change things without taking down their trial if the trial is finished, in so far as the main idea is, for these sorts of things and would rather their plans/surprises not be ruined because people can just look in the editor. Kwando's suggestion of a toggle sounds like an optimal way to allow people to learn from other trials but also allow authors to keep their editors private if necessary.

(This also probably totally ruins games like Endless Nine or whatever it's called.)

A suggestion of mine (found in the Glitch Hunt and in my topic "Towards V7") is to allow two versions of a trial, a public and a private one. You can then make changes to the private one, but wait until you are done before publishing it. That would solve your problem, I believe.

There is no way that Endless Nine or any public trial could ever be completely protected. JavaScript needs access to the trial data, and as long as that fact remains, a user with a bit of tech savvy (or Ferdielance's trial data extractor) could get the trial data. The only way to completely protect a trial would be to have two versions of it, one private, one public, as Ganon mentioned.

So there are now three important questions:* Would Ganon's proposal, if adopted, supplant the need for this?* If yes, would Ganon's proposal be adopted?* If either of the above is no, how much demand is there for a feature like this?

I'll wait to hear what enigma (or other interested parties) think on the first question before moving on.

[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson

I'm not a programmer either (only to a limited extend, at least), but isn't it just a matter of saving two different files on the server instead of one? Sounds pretty trivial to implement (compared to many other feature requests) in my opinion. There might be some work related to changing the database structure of the site, though.

To be clear, the problem is not with storing two files per trial : we already store up to 11 files per trial with the backup system.The problem is how to design it. More specifically :

How to ensure backwards compatibility ?We can't just say "each trial stores one file for the release and one file for the editor" : there are thousands of trials out there, and I don't intend on duplicating all of them. The system needs a clear policy to know how to handle trials which only have a single file like now.

How to adapt the UI for the user to understand what's going on ?How do we make it clear to the user that the version he is editing is not the one that is visible to the player ? How do we make it so that the owner and collabs can actually playtest both versions : adding yet another button in the trial card in the manager ?

This change would also impact all layers of the AAO server-side code, from the UI layout to the way trial files are loaded, including permission checks as well since the permissions would not be the same on both files.

So no, not trivial.

On the other hand, I like the idea : maintaining both a "development" and a "release" version of a product is pretty much standard in software programming, and I guess this practice makes sense as well for AAO trials. It has added value because it enables an author to test changes before releasing them to the public.And with that we're back to clear file permissions as well : either you have permission to load the dev file, or you don't.So for that proposal, why not - it will just be a fair bit of work and anyone up for implementing it should discuss it with me first to plan the thing.

On the contrary, I still don't like the idea of a toggle between "people can access it in the editor or not", because I still don't see any added value.If the trial is released, anyone can access the data, be it simply from using the browser's debugger while in the player, or just loading trial.js.php in the browser. Even if I add a check in the editor to refuse opening up on this trial, if a user wants to cheat, he can. Heck, any user can even entirely copy your trial data from the player, save it in one of their own trial and browse it in the editor as one of their own trials, and I couldn't do a single thing about it.So what you are asking me here is to introduce a new setting for a feature which is only reliable towards people who are knowlegeable enough to open an editor URL that they never saw a link to (again, the link to the editor is never shown if you don't have permission to edit - in order to open someone else's trial in the editor, you need to know that it's possible, and more importantly you need to want it, it can't be a mistake), but too lazy to copy paste the trial data file.On that proposal, my position still stands : no, I won't add a setting for that. I could change the behaviour of the editor to make it just a little harder to cheat, but that's for everyone. I won't add a database setting in order to enable or disable an unreliable feature.

How to ensure backwards compatibility ?We can't just say "each trial stores one file for the release and one file for the editor" : there are thousands of trials out there, and I don't intend on duplicating all of them. The system needs a clear policy to know how to handle trials which only have a single file like now.

In my opinion, once the change is implemented, there will by default only be one version of each file. Then when you start to edit, you create a temporary copy where your changes go. When you are done editing, you hit "Publish changes", and the private version replaces the public version. There is once again only one version of the trial

Unas a écrit :

How to adapt the UI for the user to understand what's going on ?How do we make it clear to the user that the version he is editing is not the one that is visible to the player ? How do we make it so that the owner and collabs can actually playtest both versions : adding yet another button in the trial card in the manager ?

The "publish" button would probably belong in the Manager, but it could be in both places for all I care. Instead of one playtest button you would also need two. It would also make sense to add a button in the player to switch between public and private versions, if you have the right to see the private version.

As for how to make the player aware of the change; well, how did people learn you have to pay for your groceries before leaving the store? They were told and got used to it. If you're nervous people don't get it, do it like on Gmail: Whenever there is a new feature, there is a pop-up window explaining the change, visible for everyone the first time they open the editor after the change. Do that for half a year until people get used to it.

EDIT: Another suggestion which may be implemented simultanously is autosave.

"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"